Alfred Sant was right when, speaking on Sunday about the forthcoming European parliament elections, he told his party's supporters that this was not a vote for or against Europe. The decision about that was taken in the March 2003 referendum and confirmed in no uncertain manner in the subsequent general election. When making the comment, Dr Sant was only trying to send out the party's message to its supporters to vote in the elections, despite its original stand against EU membership.

Labour finds itself in a dilemma of its own making - that of trying to make those who had agreed with its anti-EU membership stance in the first place to come to accept its new stand over membership. This is not an easy matter, not when Labour, particularly Dr Sant himself, had been so categorical in his statements against membership.

Maybe Dr Sant should have stepped down immediately after the referendum, allowing the party to contest the election on a new policy that would have accepted membership. Many strongly hold that had the party done this, it might have had a good chance of winning the election, although it is hard to imagine how the electorate could have trusted the MLP so soon after the referendum outcome in favour of EU membership.

Labour fears that many of those who had been convinced that its partnership proposal was the best in the island's circumstances would now decide, out of principle, not to vote in the elections for the European parliament as they would otherwise by betraying their own conviction. If there is anyone to blame for this, it is the party itself, which had shown itself so resolute against membership in the campaign before the referendum. The partnership proposal - that came in the wake of the Switzerland in the Mediterranean idea - was a poor substitute to what the Nationalist Party was offering.

The talk about turning Malta into Switzerland in the Mediterranean was confusing and the partnership proposal did not make a strong impact, more so when the electorate was well aware of the fact that the island already had an association agreement with the European Union. Even now that Labour has said that once the majority of the people had accepted membership in the election they would respect the decision, many are still quite unconvinced of Labour's stand.

In sharp contrast to the PN's policy, which is one based not just on the economic benefits that could be obtained through membership but also on the belief that even politically Malta's place is in Europe, Labour's position has yet to be concretised. As the situation stands now, its policy is as yet based solely on the practicality of accepting the electorate's choice.

In other words, its policy change vis-à-vis EU membership has been totally dictated by the outcome of the referendum and the general election. In truth then, it is purely one of convenience and it is precisely this that troubles the conscience of those who had genuinely believed in Labour's opinion that membership was as yet unsuitable for the island.

Labour's dilemma is not one that can be solved with the stroke of a pen, particularly in view of the fact that the man who symbolises the party's opposition to EU membership remains at the helm. The problem is that, even now, Labour has not been playing its cards well and has made some confusing statements along the way. It badly needs to articulate its policy and to sound genuine enough to convince others of their new stand.